Point

Aashima Chalise

The concept of “cancelling” refers to the act of publicly calling out individuals or entities for problematic behaviour or beliefs, with the aim of holding them accountable and demanding change. In some cases, this can lead to boycotts, public shaming, and other forms of social pressure that can result in the person or entity being effectively “cancelled” or blocked from having a prominent public platform or career.

John Stuart Mill, an influential philosopher and advocate of free speech, argued that individuals should have the freedom to express their opinions and ideas as long as they do not cause physical harm or incite violence. However, he also recognised that there are limits to this freedom, and when the line is crossed, and harm is caused, it is necessary to have measures in place to hold individuals accountable and maintain social order.

Creating a safe and inclusive environment for everyone involves promoting and enforcing a culture of respect and responsibility. This requires making individuals aware of the consequences of their actions and ensuring that everyone abides by the general principles of human decency.

The concept of cancel culture has generated intense disagreement, with some claiming it is an essential tool for advancing social justice and holding influential people and institutions responsible for their deeds, while others claim it can breed discrimination, censorship, and racial dominance.

By calling out individuals or groups who engage in harmful or offensive behaviour, cancel culture sends a message that such actions are unacceptable and will not be tolerated. This can deter others from engaging in similar behaviour and promote a culture of greater awareness and responsibility.

Cancel culture can bring attention to important issues that may have been previously overlooked. It may increase awareness and start necessary debates about societal issues, including racism, sexism, and homophobia, by highlighting bad actions, attitudes, and beliefs.

Changes in societal norms and expectations may be significantly influenced by cancel culture. Calling out negative conduct and making people and institutions responsible may pressure change and advance a more inclusive and fair society.

Cancel culture may be an effective tool for defending oppressed communities against the prejudice and persecution they have historically faced. Cancel culture helps to make marginalised populations safer and more inclusive by exposing and holding responsible those who engage in abusive conduct.

It’s important to keep in mind, too, that cancel culture is also debatable and has drawn criticism for encouraging censorship and suppressing free expression from some quarters. The effects of cancel culture may differ based on the particular conditions and setting in which it is used, and its usefulness is still up for discussion.

Counterpoint

Saisha Shrestha

Unless you live under a rock, you probably know how cancel culture works. A public figure comes along, says something offensive, and the public backlash ensues, followed by a call to cancel that person–that is, to revoke their cultural cachet and withdraw support.

While, agreeably, cancel culture was born to maintain accountability and social justice, its intent has become blurry these past years.

And this problem arises because its limits have not been defined.

For instance, in this era of performative wokeness and virtue signalling, social media has become a Bigg Boss setting where our words are constantly monitored, and the smallest of slip-ups will lead to elimination–being cancelled. In doing so, cancel culture is inching dangerously close to the territory of cyber-bullying–a modern form of ostracisation.

And this ostracisation can be very hostile to free speech. The fear of being cancelled causes people to self-censor, which can harm public discourse. Hence, it is no surprise that more than four in 10 people (45%) say they have, at least once, not expressed an opinion for fear of being cancelled, according to the Where America Stands survey. This points to a very alarming problem.

Cancel culture has become a means to promote exclusion over education, condemnation over compassion, and is deaf to redemption and change.

Amidst this, the online culture also doesn't leave room for ambiguities. People are quick to cancel somebody without taking the time to discover the full story. It reiterates the sentiment of “guilty until proven innocent”.

Alluding to it would be Mary Prudie’s case. She was accused of plagiarism for her artwork, which later turned out to be false.She says, “I had just finished cancer treatment, and there were 100 people in my DMs every day telling me to kill myself.”

Yet, it’s instructive to note that cancel culture hasn’t succeeded in toppling any major figures—

high-level politicians, corporate titans, let alone institutions. People like JK Rowling, Kanye West and Morgan Wallen are examples of supposedly cancelled celebrities who are still making a good living.

However, people like Mary Prudie, who have fewer resources to defend themselves or recover from cancellation, seem to be affected the most by cancel culture—which seems counterproductive at best.

The emergence of cancel culture employs digital mobs to police our speech and rule out people as good or bad. It has created a community ruled by censorship and corroded public discourse. Against this backdrop, I ask all of you: “Is cancel culture really effective?”